Differing Views May Collide At Patrick Henry College

Update: Patrick Henry College has dispatched a couple of their professional apologists (one at least seems to have some sort of cozy arrangement involving mutual promotion) to ask “why the mean gay activists won’t leave the poor private Christian college alone.” Here’s a good reason: This PHC student didn’t come up with this sickening nonsense by accident (and of course he is being mocked. Please. Not everyone has the grace of the Equality Riders, after all.) Ask me sometime about why Equality Loudoun was founded, and exactly who isn’t leaving who alone.

I know, confrontation is so much more dramatic than some people sitting down and talking to each other. That could actually lead to mutual understanding and friendship, and who wants that?

PHC president Graham Walker does reveal, in a long letter sent to parents, a “desire to engage” the Equality Riders on the part of the students – one that he is having to thwart. It will be interesting to see how their intellectual curiosity and discontent with his decision plays out.

Leesburg Today
April 10, 2007
By Charlie Jackson

A gay rights activist group plans to hold a press conference at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville Thursday in an attempt to convince the college to change its policies toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Patrick Henry College, a conservative Christian college, does not plan on welcoming the Soulforce Equality Riders onto campus. College spokesman David Halbrook said the school has requested the presence of town and county law enforcement to bar the activist group from campus.

More »

This entry was posted in Commentary, News and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Differing Views May Collide At Patrick Henry College

  1. Jack says:

    First, you must agree that Patrick Henry College has the right to keep the Equality Riders out. They should not have to call the police to enforce that.

    The PHC President refers to the following passage: “But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner “”- not even to eat with such a person.” (1Cor5:11) I do not think that engaging in debate is “keep[ing] company,” but as you like to say, my interpretation is no more valid than his. You must respect his interpretation if you want anyone to respect yours.

    You should point out to Pillman, the PHC student who posted the “sickening nonsense,” that to be consistent, he should advocate for the death penalty: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Lev20:13)

    However, I really doubt such will happen in the U.S., although I do know a fellow, a co-worker of mine many years ago, who was arrested, twice, for fornication. However, that was back in the late 60’s.

    Back to present reality, NIH currently spends $2.9B per year on AIDS research (http://www.cbs.com/cbs_cares/hiv/hiv_interview_fauci.shtml). Meanwhile, it spends less than twice that, $4.83B, for ALL cancer research. The highest individual outlay is for breast cancer at about $551M. (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding) (As you know, different cancers have different causes, and require different diagnostic methods and different treatments.)

    Meanwhile, between 1981 and 2003, there have been 209,223 reported cases of AIDS in the U.S., a rate of 15.2/100,000. (http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/Fact-Sheet-The-HIV-AIDS-Epidemic-in-the-United-States-2005-Update.pdf)

    The cancer rate, however, is about 470/100,000 in the United States. (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/npcrpdfs/US_Cancer_Statistics_2003_Incidence_and_Mortality.pdf)

    So, per person afflicted, we are spending 18 times as much research money, for a COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE DISEASE!! (And, as noted in the CBS article, the U.S. is spending an additional $15B on AIDS “treatment, prevention, and care.” I do not have the numbers for cancer.)

    So you can understand why there may be some inclination to outlaw such behavior, just as we have outlawed riding a motorcycle without a helmet and driving a car without a seatbelt.

  2. David says:

    No one is arguing that the law shouldn’t be enforced.

    Now, are you opposed in all cases to civil disobedience? If you are, that’s a perfectly valid position. Would you agree that lunch counter owners throughout the Jim Crow south had the right to “refuse service to anyone,” and that the non-violent direct action of the Freedom Riders was wrong? What about groups like Operation Rescue, who chain themselves across the doorways of abortion clinics in violation of the law? Are they wrong to do that? Should the clinic owners have to call the police to enforce the law?

    Pillman knows that, it was the point of his post.

    By “such behavior,” I have to assume that you mean irresponsible, promiscuous sexual behavior. I don’t think we have an argument there. What I don’t see is how that relates to the rest of your comment, which seems to be about condemnation of same sex intimacy.

  3. Jack says:

    Yes, the lunch-counter owners were within their rights to refuse service to anyone. The freedom riders WERE violating the law. Chaining oneself across doorways of abortion clinics is also against the law. After all, what is the point of civil disobedience, if there is no risk to it?

    It is not, however, a valid comparison. Has Patrick Henry College refused service to any of the Equality Riders? Has PHC refused service to anyone for what they are? Who?

    I do indeed mean “irresponsible, promiscuous sexual behavior.” I’m glad we agree. To be safe, that would include ALL sexual activity outside marriage.